Jump to content

2021 - Is inflation finally back in the conversation?


Reagan1k

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Well, when a 'person' is also 'the business', as in...they are the owner, it makes a fucking world of difference, because that's where a huge amount of LT cap gains tax comes from.  

something tells me the size of small business LT cap gains is several orders of magnitude smaller than the majors LT cap gains. But don't let me stop y'all from conflating cap gains taxes on 100k LT vs 100M in LT gains. It's a very honest apples to oranges comparison 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StassneyHorn said:

And people had way more money to spend. The economy is thundering, booming, and howling. I’m so scared of it all.

Minus that whole inflation bit, and the little thing that credit card debts and delinquencies are historically high, late payments on utilities and autos are terribad, and a lot of other signs are there that things aren't looking that pretty.  But strike up the band and rearrange the deck chairs, cap'n.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

something tells me the size of small business LT cap gains is several orders of magnitude smaller than the majors LT cap gains. But don't let me stop y'all from conflating cap gains taxes on 100k LT vs 100M in LT gains. It's a very honest apples to oranges comparison 

By all means....let's punish the hundreds of thousands/millions of 100k LT cap gainers because of the worries of 300-500 100mm LT cap gainers....and then factor in the amount of people those fuckers employ as well.  By all fucking means.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

By all means....let's punish the hundreds of thousands/millions of 100k LT cap gainers because of the worries of 300-500 100mm LT cap gainers....and then factor in the amount of people those fuckers employ as well.  By all fucking means.  

L O L

A business paying taxes is "punishment" for the owners and employees? Gimmeafugginbreak

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Minus that whole inflation bit, and the little thing that credit card debts and delinquencies are historically high, late payments on utilities and autos are terribad, and a lot of other signs are there that things aren't looking that pretty.  But strike up the band and rearrange the deck chairs, cap'n.  

Fear porn that is irrelevant 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The administration of this unrealized capital gains tax will be nearly impossible without adding another 100k IRS employees and even then not gather anywhere near the tax they expect to collect. 

What it will do is open the door to lowering that 100m threshold down to say $1m or less within a handful of election cycles. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

The administration of this unrealized capital gains tax will be nearly impossible without adding another 100k IRS employees and even then not gather anywhere near the tax they expect to collect. 

What it will do is open the door to lowering that 100m threshold down to say $1m or less within a handful of election cycles. 

If you're an individual with over a million in LT cap gains in a year, then you've got fuck you money and aren't exactly getting pUnIsHeD seeing a few extra percentage points of taxes on your free money you didn't work for lol. Oh no! Now I can't afford my THIRD rent house! THIS IS COMMUNISM!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Captainant said:

If you're an individual with over a million in LT cap gains in a year, then you've got fuck you money and aren't exactly getting pUnIsHeD seeing a few extra percentage points of taxes on your free money you didn't work for lol. Oh no! Now I can't afford my THIRD rent house! THIS IS COMMUNISM!!!

Sorry you’re poor. J/k.

but do you not think they’ll expand the base and lower the threshold until they get the money they need? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Sorry you’re poor. J/k.

but do you not think they’ll expand the base and lower the threshold until they get the money they need? 

Taxes are historically low for corporate entities and the ultra wealthy. I don't buy the slippery slope argument when we're already at the bottom of the hill for cutting taxes and making new loopholes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

More than doubling of cap gains rate is, “a few extra percentage points of taxes”.

what a fucking clown

** For annual LT cap gains over $1MM. My condolences if you're impacted by the proposal. 

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is the place to discuss it, but the gymnastics involved in trying to alchemically convert asset ownership into income for the purpose of taxing the wealthy is a great example of why efforts to make the tax structure more equitable would be more straightforward and successful if we taxed consumption (ie spending) as it exceeded graduated thresholds rather than production. 

Wealth is not work. Wealth is the equity that accrues to someone or something as the surplus value of their labor and the labor of others. It is not income, but the result of income, and it is folly to treat it the same way. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Captainant said:

** For annual LT cap gains over $1MM. My condolences if you're impacted by the proposal. 

So the startup or small business owner or group of owners that have been grinding past 10-15 years to build their business (income is taxed) while taking a small salary (also already taxed) to build equity should now pay more than double capital gains tax because their risk and hard work paid off?  How American of you.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Spending cuts would not make the tax code more equitable. It would merely reduce the subsidy paid to us by the unborn. 

True, but it would help with the overarching argument of why we need more tax revenue in the first place.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

True, but it would help with the overarching argument of why we need more tax revenue in the first place.  

It really wouldn't though. First of all, there's the issue of managing the rate of cuts to avoid the recessionary impact. Second, there's the simple fact that you could cut %100 of all discretionary spending and it wouldn't be enough to fund the federal deficit. 

Our issue is non-discretionary, ie legally mandatory spending - Social security, national defense, interest payments on the debt, medicare, and medicaid. More or less in that order. 

It's a solvable problem, but saying we could "just cut spending" is just as fantastical as "we should just tax wealth".

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't know if this is the place to discuss it, but the gymnastics involved in trying to alchemically convert asset ownership into income for the purpose of taxing the wealthy is a great example of why efforts to make the tax structure more equitable would be more straightforward and successful if we taxed consumption (ie spending) as it exceeded graduated thresholds rather than production. 

Wealth is not work. Wealth is the equity that accrues to someone or something as the surplus value of their labor and the labor of others. It is not income, but the result of income, and it is folly to treat it the same way. 

100% on board with moving away from income-based taxation, and towards a national (and eventual state) VAT. There are tons of really good reasons to make such a change, and there is really just one reason we won't. It's regressive towards the poorest of us. But it's a far more practical change that actually raises the revenue its intended to, businesses are incentivized to comply, and its easy to understand. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It really wouldn't though. First of all, there's the issue of managing the rate of cuts to avoid the recessionary impact. Second, there's the simple fact that you could cut %100 of all discretionary spending and it wouldn't be enough to fund the federal deficit. 

Our issue is non-discretionary, ie legally mandatory spending - Social security, national defense, interest payments on the debt, medicare, and medicaid. More or less in that order. 

It's a solvable problem, but saying we could "just cut spending" is just as fantastical as "we should just tax wealth".

That's fine, but when the interest paid on debt equals and/or starts to approach 100% of GDP.....it's lights out, and simply rehashing the revenue side of the balance sheet isn't going to be enough.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

100% on board with moving away from income-based taxation, and towards a national (and eventual state) VAT. There are tons of really good reasons to make such a change, and there is really just one reason we won't. It's regressive towards the poorest of us. But it's a far more practical change that actually raises the revenue its intended to, businesses are incentivized to comply, and its easy to understand. 

this is a good post, but I don't think the bolded line has to be true. There's a number of ways we could manage that, any number of which would be less complex and problematic than what we do now. 
 

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That's fine, but when the interest paid on debt equals and/or starts to approach 100% of GDP.....it's lights out, and simply rehashing the revenue side of the balance sheet isn't going to be enough.  

No argument here. This was my primary argument on HF and Shaggy when we were stupidly financing tax cuts with debt in 2001 and 2003* to provide further short term stimulus even thought we were already in an expansion- that we were foreclosing our last, best chance reset the national debt, and ultimately reduce the tax burden on everyone.  

We may be fucked. We may run out of options other than minting the coin, as silly as that sounds. 
 



*of course we shouldn't have made them permanent either in 2012, but at that point we were just emerging from a giant financial crisis and didn't have dry powder, which is exactly why it's so goddamn stupid to initiate deficit funded fiscal stimulus in the middle of an expansion.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Captainant said:

[laughs in 2017 tax cuts]

You can argue that about the individual tax rates and deductions from the 2017 act. The corporate tax reduction had been needed for a long time, and it would be stupid to increase it to pre-2017 rates, unless the desire is to have private sector operating like it did from 2007-2017, when the majority of growth was in the public sector and industries favored by government spending. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

this is a good post, but I don't think the bolded line has to be true. There's a number of ways we could manage that, any number of which would be less complex and problematic than what we do now. 

Correct. This is typical trope from our resident I got my economics degree from TikTok captcommie bullshit.  Looking forward to the opposite overcorrection that will follow this LT gains silliness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

How about we strip the estate tax examption back to 1M and tax all estates over 1M at 50% like we used to fucking do.

Why? So that we can enrich accountants and lawyers setting up trusts and wealth transfers?

It’s like you don’t realize how wealthy our legislators are. 

Edited by statsman
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, statsman said:

Why? So that we can enrich accountants and lawyers setting up trusts and wealth transfers?

It’s like you don’t realize how wealthy our legislators are. 

Not at all. I think you blow up the whole trust and wealth transfer scheme once and for all.  The wealthy have benefited throughout their lives without paying their fair share (I pay more as a percentage of my income than a lot of the billionaire class, which is complete bullshit), so if they refuse to pay their share during their life, then hit them on death. It isn't that hard.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not at all. I think you blow up the whole trust and wealth transfer scheme once and for all.  The wealthy have benefited throughout their lives without paying their fair share (I pay more as a percentage of my income than a lot of the billionaire class, which is complete bullshit), so if they refuse to pay their share during their life, then hit them on death. It isn't that hard.

Not that hard?  Mark Penn, former top Clinton economist and top advisor staunchly disagrees

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You are talking about Capital Gains.  I am ok keeping Capital Gains while they live, then nailing them when they die. Apples and oranges.

So to be clear, you are ok with keeping the current process in place for capital gains, and instead raising the tax rates on "the rich" who have the means to simply move money around to avoid paying sed taxes on them.  How do that work?  We destroying trusts, LLCs, etc?  They are "rich" now because there is no attack mechanism on them to declare that wealth.  Change the rules, so will they.  Them poof, on paper they are no longer "rich" minus unrealized capital gains, which you said you are fine with leaving as is.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Powell pretty much locked in the FOMC to cutting at the September meeting.

"The time has come for policy to adjust. We do not seek or welcome further cooling in the labor market."

I'd wager the standard 25 points. Nothing dramatic like 50.

10-year currently down to 3.82%. 

Edited by Storm the Field
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

So to be clear, you are ok with keeping the current process in place for capital gains, and instead raising the tax rates on "the rich" who have the means to simply move money around to avoid paying sed taxes on them.  How do that work?  We destroying trusts, LLCs, etc?  They are "rich" now because there is no attack mechanism on them to declare that wealth.  Change the rules, so will they.  Them poof, on paper they are no longer "rich" minus unrealized capital gains, which you said you are fine with leaving as is.  

...and a few states wanting to do things like this with tax payer dollars!! What could go wrong?

 

spacer.png

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You almost just have to throw out CA policy at this point since its so far off the reservation.  I saw reports that the subsidy program for rooftop solar panels is expected to cost non rooftop panel owners in CA over $8.5B annually by the end of the year on top of increased electricity costs. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not at all. I think you blow up the whole trust and wealth transfer scheme once and for all.  The wealthy have benefited throughout their lives without paying their fair share (I pay more as a percentage of my income than a lot of the billionaire class, which is complete bullshit), so if they refuse to pay their share during their life, then hit them on death. It isn't that hard.

you'd be punishing way more "normal" people than you think.  My wife has had a ranch in the family for nearly 100 years, without a trust that land would have to be sold by my wife and her sister due to the tax bill.  Guess who would buy it up?  Real estate developers.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gurt said:

you'd be punishing way more "normal" people than you think.  My wife has had a ranch in the family for nearly 100 years, without a trust that land would have to be sold by my wife and her sister due to the tax bill.  Guess who would buy it up?  Real estate developers.

Same

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, gurt said:

you'd be punishing way more "normal" people than you think.  My wife has had a ranch in the family for nearly 100 years, without a trust that land would have to be sold by my wife and her sister due to the tax bill.  Guess who would buy it up?  Real estate developers.

Interesting.  Was told on the markets thread I was making situations like this up.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...